Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century. Jean Buridan, a prominent fourteenth-century Parisian scholar, argued that science is predicated on the assumption of the "common course of nature" This profound assumption represented a major shift in scholarly focus from the theological investigation of the uncommon or miraculous to the attempted explanation of the regular structure and operation of the world in purely rational and secular terms. Buridan also advocated the application of Occam's razor, the principle that science should seek the simplest possible explanation that fits the evidence. The one important ingredient of modern science that was missing prior to the sixteenth century was the widespread use of experiments, and the scientific revolution of the sixteenth century began when scientists started to use experiments to discover new answers to questions that had already been pondered for several centuries.
Ques. 1/3
The primary purpose of the passage is to
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. | What it says: Most scholars believe modern science started during the 1500s-1600s scientific revolution. What it does: Sets up the conventional view that the author will challenge. Source/Type: Summary of scholarly consensus (not the author's view). Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to. Visualization: Timeline showing: Before 1500s (no modern science) → 1500s-1600s (modern science begins) → After 1700s (modern science continues) Reading Strategy Insight: Watch for the author's contrasting view - this setup suggests disagreement is coming. What We Know So Far: Standard view = modern science began in 1500s-1600s What We Don't Know Yet: What the author thinks about this view |
| Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. | What it says: Don't define modern science by specific discoveries or accomplishments. What it does: Introduces the author's disagreement with the conventional view. Source/Type: Author's opinion (note the "should not"). Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly challenges sentence 1. The word "however" signals contrast. The author disagrees with focusing on "great achievements." Visualization: ❌ Modern Science = Specific achievements (Galileo's telescope, Newton's laws, etc.) ✅ Modern Science = [Something else - we don't know what yet] Reading Strategy Insight: The author is setting up their alternative definition. Stay tuned for what they think modern science SHOULD be identified with. |
| Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century. | What it says: Modern science = a method/approach to studying nature, and parts of this method existed in the 1300s. What it does: Provides the author's alternative definition AND introduces the key claim about earlier origins. Source/Type: Author's opinion and main argument. Connection to Previous Sentences: "Rather" connects to sentence 2's "should not." This completes the author's redefinition: NOT about achievements, BUT about methodology. Visualization: Timeline Correction: 1300s: Some elements of modern scientific approach already exist 1500s-1600s: Traditional view says modern science begins Author's view: Modern science (as methodology) started much earlier! Reading Strategy Insight: This is the thesis! Everything else will support this claim about earlier origins. What We Know So Far: Author believes modern science = methodology, parts existed in 1300s What We Don't Know Yet: What specific methodological elements, who developed them |
| Jean Buridan, a prominent fourteenth-century Parisian scholar, argued that science is predicated on the assumption of the "common course of nature." | What it says: A 1300s scholar (Buridan) said science assumes nature follows regular patterns. What it does: Provides first concrete example supporting the thesis about 14th-century origins. Source/Type: Historical fact about Buridan's argument. Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us our first specific example of sentence 3's claim. "Fourteenth-century" directly connects to "fourteenth century" from sentence 3. Visualization: 1300s Scientific Methodology - Element #1: Buridan's Contribution: "Common course of nature" = Nature follows predictable, regular patterns (not random miracles) Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this is exactly what we expected after sentence 3. The author is delivering on their promise to show 14th-century methodological elements. |
| This profound assumption represented a major shift in scholarly focus from the theological investigation of the uncommon or miraculous to the attempted explanation of the regular structure and operation of the world in purely rational and secular terms. | What it says: Buridan's idea was revolutionary: stopped studying miracles through religion, started studying regular patterns through reason. What it does: Explains WHY Buridan's contribution was so important to modern scientific methodology. Source/Type: Author's analysis of Buridan's historical significance. Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on sentence 4's "common course of nature." No new concept - just explaining the importance of what we already learned. Visualization: The Big Shift: OLD Approach: Study unusual events (miracles) → Use theological explanations NEW Approach (Buridan): Study regular patterns → Use rational, secular explanations Reading Strategy Insight: This is helpful elaboration, not new complexity! The author is making sure we understand why Buridan mattered. |
| Buridan also advocated the application of Occam's razor, the principle that science should seek the simplest possible explanation that fits the evidence. | What it says: Buridan also supported Occam's razor: choose the simplest explanation that works. What it does: Provides second example of Buridan's contribution to modern scientific methodology. Source/Type: Historical fact about Buridan's methodological principles. Connection to Previous Sentences: "Also" signals this adds to our list of Buridan's contributions. We're building our case for 14th-century methodological elements. Visualization: 1300s Scientific Methodology - Buridan's Complete Contribution: Element #1: "Common course of nature" (regular patterns) Element #2: Occam's razor (simplest explanations) Reading Strategy Insight: We're accumulating evidence for the main thesis. This strengthens rather than complicates the argument. What We Know So Far: Buridan (1300s) contributed 2 key elements of modern scientific method What We Don't Know Yet: What was missing before the 1500s-1600s revolution |
| The one important ingredient of modern science that was missing prior to the sixteenth century was the widespread use of experiments, and the scientific revolution of the sixteenth century began when scientists started to use experiments to discover new answers to questions that had already been pondered for several centuries. | What it says: Only missing piece before 1500s was experiments. The 1500s revolution = adding experiments to existing questions. What it does: Completes the argument by acknowledging what the traditional scientific revolution actually contributed. Source/Type: Author's final analysis reconciling both views. Connection to Previous Sentences: This answers the logical question: "If methodology existed in 1300s, what made 1500s-1600s special?" This ties together the whole argument. Visualization: Complete Timeline: 1300s: Methodology (Buridan) ✓ + Experiments ❌ = Partial modern science 1500s-1600s: Methodology ✓ + Experiments ✓ = Complete modern science The "revolution" just added the missing piece! Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect conclusion! The author hasn't destroyed the traditional view - they've reframed it. The scientific revolution was important, but it built on much earlier foundations. Final Understanding: Modern science = methodology (1300s) + experiments (1500s). Both periods matter, but origins go back further than traditionally thought. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge the traditional view of when modern science began by redefining what modern science actually is and showing that its key elements appeared much earlier than commonly believed.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by systematically reframing our understanding of modern science's origins:
- First, they present the standard scholarly view that modern science began during the scientific revolution of the 1500s and 1600s
- Next, they disagree with this view and argue that modern science should be defined by its methodology rather than by specific achievements, claiming that key methodological elements existed as early as the 1300s
- Then, they provide concrete evidence by showing how a 14th-century scholar named Jean Buridan contributed important elements of modern scientific method, including the assumption that nature follows regular patterns and the principle of seeking the simplest explanations
- Finally, they acknowledge what was actually new about the traditional scientific revolution - the widespread use of experiments - while maintaining that this just completed a methodological approach that was already centuries old
Main Point:
Modern science should be understood as a way of thinking and approaching nature rather than as a set of discoveries, and this scientific methodology actually began in the 14th century, making modern science much older than traditionally believed. The famous scientific revolution of the 1500s and 1600s was important, but it simply added experiments to a scientific approach that already existed.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks for the "primary purpose" of the passage, which means we need to identify the author's main goal in writing this text. We're looking for what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish through their argument.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we can see a clear argumentative structure:
- The author presents the prevailing scholarly opinion (modern science began in the 1500s-1600s)
- The author challenges this view by redefining modern science as methodology rather than achievements
- The author provides evidence that key methodological elements existed in the 1300s (Buridan's contributions)
- The author reconciles both views by explaining what the traditional scientific revolution actually added (experiments)
The passage analysis shows this is not just a summary or description, but an active challenge to established thinking. The author doesn't completely reject the traditional view but rather modifies and refines it by pushing back the origins of modern science.
Prethinking:
Based on the structure and content, the author's primary purpose is to challenge or modify the established scholarly viewpoint about when modern science began. The author does this by:
- Redefining what modern science actually is (methodology vs. achievements)
- Providing historical evidence for earlier origins
- Reconciling the traditional view with this new perspective
This suggests we're looking for an answer choice that captures the idea of challenging, modifying, or qualifying an established scholarly position.
Answer Choices Explained
A
qualify an established scholarly viewpoint regarding a certain issue
Why It's Right:
• The passage directly challenges the "prevailing scholarly opinion" about when modern science began
• The author doesn't reject this view entirely but modifies it by redefining modern science and showing earlier origins
• The structure moves from presenting the established view to qualifying it with evidence and analysis
• The author maintains that the scientific revolution was important but argues it built on much earlier foundations
Key Evidence: "Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century."
• The passage directly challenges the "prevailing scholarly opinion" about when modern science began
• The author doesn't reject this view entirely but modifies it by redefining modern science and showing earlier origins
• The structure moves from presenting the established view to qualifying it with evidence and analysis
• The author maintains that the scientific revolution was important but argues it built on much earlier foundations
Key Evidence: "Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century."
B
summarize prevailing scholarly opinion regarding a certain issue
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't just summarize the prevailing view - they actively challenge it
• Only the first sentence presents the scholarly consensus; the rest of the passage argues against it
• A summary would be neutral, but this passage takes a clear argumentative stance
Common Student Mistakes:
• The author doesn't just summarize the prevailing view - they actively challenge it
• Only the first sentence presents the scholarly consensus; the rest of the passage argues against it
• A summary would be neutral, but this passage takes a clear argumentative stance
Common Student Mistakes:
- Confusing the opening setup with the main purpose?
→ Remember that authors often present opposing views first before arguing against them - Focusing only on the first sentence?
→ Read the entire passage to understand the author's actual argument, not just the background information
C
delineate the historical events that led to a change in scholarly opinion
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't trace specific historical events that led to changes in scholarly opinion
• There's no discussion of how or why scholarly views evolved over time
• The focus is on challenging current scholarly opinion, not explaining how that opinion developed
• The historical content (about Buridan) is used to support the author's argument, not to explain changes in scholarly thinking
Common Student Mistakes:
• The passage doesn't trace specific historical events that led to changes in scholarly opinion
• There's no discussion of how or why scholarly views evolved over time
• The focus is on challenging current scholarly opinion, not explaining how that opinion developed
• The historical content (about Buridan) is used to support the author's argument, not to explain changes in scholarly thinking
Common Student Mistakes:
- Confusing historical evidence with history of scholarly opinion?
→ The author uses historical facts about the 1300s to make their point, but doesn't discuss how scholars' views changed - Misinterpreting the chronological structure?
→ The timeline in the passage is about scientific development, not about the evolution of scholarly opinions
D
reconcile conflicting viewpoints in a debate
Why It's Wrong:
• There's only one main scholarly viewpoint presented, not multiple conflicting views
• The author doesn't reconcile different scholarly debates but rather challenges the established consensus
• No mention of competing schools of thought or ongoing debates among scholars
Common Student Mistakes:
• There's only one main scholarly viewpoint presented, not multiple conflicting views
• The author doesn't reconcile different scholarly debates but rather challenges the established consensus
• No mention of competing schools of thought or ongoing debates among scholars
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking the author reconciles old vs. new views of science itself?
→ The author is challenging scholarly opinion about science, not reconciling different scientific approaches - Confusing historical periods with scholarly debates?
→ The passage discusses different time periods in scientific development, not different scholarly positions
E
recommend further inquiry into a particular topic
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage presents a complete argument with evidence and conclusion
• No suggestions for future research or investigation are made
• The author seems confident in their position and doesn't call for additional study
• The tone is argumentative and conclusive, not exploratory
Common Student Mistakes:
• The passage presents a complete argument with evidence and conclusion
• No suggestions for future research or investigation are made
• The author seems confident in their position and doesn't call for additional study
• The tone is argumentative and conclusive, not exploratory
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking any academic discussion calls for further inquiry?
→ Look for explicit language suggesting more research is needed; this author makes definitive claims - Confusing scholarly topics with recommendations for research?
→ Just because something is academic doesn't mean the author is recommending further study
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More